Paul Van Ryn for petitioner.
Lindey M. M., respondent
pro se.
James McSparron, Law Guardian.
OPINION OF THE COURT
W. DENNIS DUGGAN, J. The court holds in this case that demonstrated acts of domestic violence by the father against the mother defeat his The court is mindful of the fact that allowing one parent to litigate a custody dispute in her new county of residence, while also having temporary custody of the children, gives her a substantial home court advantage. It also has the ancillary effect of molting a simpler custody dispute into a relocation case. However, there is no reason why the legislative commands to consider domestic violence in interstate and international child custody jurisdictional disputes should not be brought to bear on the issue of intrastate venue determinations. In this case, requiring the mother to return to Franklin County to prosecute her custody action would be patently unjust, based on her apparent impoverishment at the hands of her husband. It would also pose a significant risk to the health and safety of the mother based on the father's alleged and established domestic violence. The standard to be applied to an inconvenient forum or change of venue motion should be the same whether it is between countries, states or counties. In this case, the domestic violence factor clearly outweighs the usual factor of witness convenience and substantial contacts with the original county of residence. For this reason, the court finds that these petitions should be heard in Albany County, and the father's motion to change venue is denied. [*] An affirmative defense under the International Parental Kidnapping Act is that the "defendant was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domestic violence." For further discussion on this point, see Weiner, International Child Abduction and Escape from Domestic Violence (69 Fordham L Rev 593 [Nov. 2000]).